Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Athenian concept of justice socrates
Athenian concept of justice socrates
Athenian concept of justice socrates
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Athenian concept of justice socrates
In ancient Greece, retributive justice served as both a strict societal code and an expectation of the cosmos. In The Eumenides by Aeschylus, the Furies serve as the defenders of this justice, which is explored in depth during the Furies’ monologue as they pursue Orestes for his matricide. In order to fully understand this passage, the reader must first grasp the Furies’ sense of justice. The Furies require Orestes’ retribution for his matricide. Unlike the contemporary view of justice, their perception dictates strict punishment for the act without consideration of both sides of the argument. Throughout the Furies’ monologue, the beings disclose both their interpretation of justice and the drive they feel to protect that view.
The Furies’ interpretation of justice allows them to act as both a champion for the wronged and an executioner for condemned souls. Once notified of someone “insane to murder kin,” the Furies will rage against him until he meets his fateful end (Aeschylus 338). Little hope remains for an offender’s exoneration after the Furies have made their judgment, and Athena notes this
…show more content…
The Furies deem themselves as the patrons of retributive justice. Every action the Furies carry out against an offender of the ancient law is a manifestation of this “right”. The repetition of the passage emphasizes this point through an AB pattern in terms of context. The Furies begin by explaining the “frenzy striking frenzy” they undergo while tormenting the offender, followed by an assertion of their right to pass judgment as ordained by the Fates (330). The next stanza is identical to the one that explains the frenzy, followed by a stanza reiterates the Furies right to judge lawbreakers. This repeating pattern accentuates why the Furies behave in the manner provided throughout the
Throughout Aristophanes’ “Clouds” there is a constant battle between old and new. It makes itself apparent in the Just and Unjust speech as well as between father and son. Ultimately, Pheidippides, whom would be considered ‘new’, triumphs over the old Strepsiades, his father. This is analogous to the Just and Unjust speech. In this debate, Just speech represents the old traditions and mores of Greece while the contrasting Unjust speech is considered to be newfangled and cynical towards the old. While the defeat of Just speech by Unjust speech does not render Pheidippides the ability to overcome Strepsiades, it is a parallel that may be compared with many other instances in Mythology and real life.
A twenty-first century reading of the Iliad and the Odyssey will highlight a seeming lack of justice: hundreds of men die because of an adulteress, the most honorable characters are killed, the cowards survive, and everyone eventually goes to hell. Due to the difference in the time period, culture, prominent religions and values, the modern idea of justice is much different than that of Greece around 750 B.C. The idea of justice in Virgil’s the Aeneid is easier for us to recognize. As in our own culture, “justice” in the epic is based on a system of punishment for wrongs and rewards for honorable acts. Time and time again, Virgil provides his readers with examples of justice in the lives of his characters. Interestingly, the meaning of justice in the Aeneid transforms when applied to Fate and the actions of the gods. Unlike our modern (American) idea of blind, immutable Justice, the meanings and effects of justice shift, depending on whether its subject is mortal or immortal.
At first glance, the picture of justice found in the Oresteia appears very different from that found in Heraclitus. And indeed, at the surface level there are a number of things which are distinctly un-Heraclitean. However, I believe that a close reading reveals more similarities than differences; and that there is a deep undercurrent of the Heraclitean world view running throughout the trilogy. In order to demonstrate this, I will first describe those ways in which the views of justice in Aeschylus' Oresteia and in Heraclitus appear dissimilar. Then I will examine how these dissimilarities are problematized by other information in the Oresteia; information which expresses views of justice very akin to Heraclitus. Of course, how similar or dissimilar they are will depend not only on one's reading of the Oresteia, but also on how one interprets Heraclitus. Therefore, when I identify a way in which justice in the Oresteia seems different from that in Heraclitus, I will also identify the interpretation of Heraclitus with which I am contrasting it. Defending my interpretation of Heraclitean justice as such is beyond the scope of this essay. However I will always refer to the particular fragments on which I am basing my interpretation, and I think that the views I will attribute to him are fairly non-controversial. It will be my contention that, after a thorough examination of both the apparent discrepancies and the similarities, the nature of justice portrayed in the Oresteia will appear more deeply Heraclitean than otherwise. I will not argue, however, that there are therefore no differences at all between Aeschylus and Heraclitus on the issue of justice. Clearly there are some real ones and I will point out any differences which I feel remain despite the many deep similarities.
Justice is generally thought to be part of one system; equally affecting all involved. We define justice as being fair or reasonable. The complications fall into the mix when an act of heroism occurs or morals are written or when fear becomes to great a force. These complications lead to the division of justice onto levels. In Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Plato’s Republic and Apology, both Plato and Aeschylus examine the views of justice and the morality of the justice system on two levels: in the city-state and the individual.
The debate between Unjust and Just Speech in Aristophanes’ Clouds draws the reader’s attention to the theme of natural pleasure versus lawful justice. The debate begins with the two Speeches representing
How do we define reason as just? When asked this question, it really makes you begin to wonder how to depict what one might think is just. In the story of Medea, reason is what drives many of the characters actions. For example, the reason that Jason leaves Medea for Creon's daughter is for his own benefit. Is that just? Medea then kills Creon and his daughter for revenge against Jason. Is that just?.
The second punishment that is allegorical in Dante’s Inferno is the one for those who committed suic...
In the Republic, Plato discusses many topics, including the issue of justice versus injustice (Plato 34). Plato’s argument indicates that justice works interchangeably with proper ethics (Plato 35). According to Plato, in order for a person to live the “best life”, they must live with justice and ethics (Plato 35). These two terms are similar in the sense that it is subjective to each individual. One’s definition of justice results from their own beliefs of ethics, which varies from person to person. Plato claims that doing “justice” is the better way of living, even if it brings misfortune in the end (Plato 34-35). This brings up the ethical dispute that misfortunes from justice is better than rewards earned from injustice. However, as seen in modern day, there is still no universal idea as to whether or not something is justifiable or abides by the ethical conduct that is expected. Often times, an action may seem justified to one individual while it seems unjustified to another. In order for someone to get what they want, they don’t think about their actions, whether or not it is following their ethical codes. In this case, the idea of “justice” and “ethics” is purely a mirage of the mind that people created so that they have a reason to feel good about themselves. In today’s society, many people get away with doing “injustice” while the actions of “justice” are disregarded. The definition of “justice” and “ethics” is still open-ended as demonstrated by justice system of the United States. There are people getting away with crimes and innocent people being put into prisons. Many times, these cases communicate the racial discrimination in the states.
In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.
Though Socrates has been unjustly incarcerated, he refuses to escape due to his implied agreement with the Athenian legal system. This paper serves to argue that Socrates’ line of reasoning to Crito does not properly address actions committed under an unjust legal system.
In this essay I will examine the war-of the-sexes taking place in The Eumenides, the final play of The Oresteia. The plot of The Eumenides pits Orestes and Apollo (representing the male gods and, to a certain extent, male values in general) against the ghost of Clytemnestra and the Furies (equally representative of female values.) Of more vital importance, however, is whether Athene sides with the males or females throughout the play.
In Plato’s The Republic, he unravels the definition of justice. Plato believed that a ruler could not be wholly just unless one was in a society that was also just. Plato did not believe in democracy, because it was democracy that killed Socrates, his beloved teacher who was a just man and a philosopher. He believed in Guardians, or philosophers/rulers that ruled the state. One must examine what it means for a state to be just and what it means for a person to be just to truly understand the meaning of justice. According to Socrates, “…if we first tried to observe justice in some larger thing that possessed it, this would make it easier to observe in a single individual. We agreed that this larger thing is a city…(Plato 96).” It is evident, therefore, that the state and the ruler described in The Republic by Plato are clearly parallel to one another.
...purpose is “to unmask the hypocrisy and show how the meaning of Justice is being perverted” . He is not prepared to argue, leaving Socrates victorious. Here, Socrates’s method of argumentative questioning is insufficient and naïve against a stubborn, powerful and philosophically certain moral skeptic. This is confirmed by the change in investigative approach in the latter books. Thus the ‘earlier’ Plato cannot adequately respond to Thrasymachus’s immoralist view of Justice.
Dante Alighieri presents a vivid and awakening view of the depths of Hell in the first book of his Divine Comedy, the Inferno. The reader is allowed to contemplate the state of his own soul as Dante "visits" and views the state of the souls of those eternally assigned to Hell's hallows. While any one of the cantos written in Inferno will offer an excellent description of the suffering and justice of hell, Canto V offers a poignant view of the assignment of punishment based on the committed sin. Through this close reading, we will examine three distinct areas of Dante's hell: the geography and punishment the sinner is restricted to, the character of the sinner, and the "fairness" or justice of the punishment in relation to the sin. Dante's Inferno is an ordered and descriptive journey that allows the reader the chance to see his own shortcomings in the sinners presented in the text.
In spite of the “pleasing human traits” of some of the sinners, Hollander argues that “we are never authorized by the poem” to truly sympathise with the sinners, because Dante insists on God’s justice (106,107). Indeed, inscribed over the gates of hell is “Giustizia mosse il mio alto fattore” (Sacred justice moved my architect, III,4).